Monday, 29 February 2016

If you are choosing between two great candidates, choose the Democrat. Or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love Hillary Clinton

This is the Hillary Clinton
endorsement that I was never sure I’d write. Getting myself to the point
where I was certain enough of my vote to be able to write it has been the most
complex and, frankly, emotional political journey that I’ve even been on. And,
I suppose, in a real sense, we are only at the beginning of that journey –
paddling though the last stretch of calm waters and catching our first glimpse
of the waters ahead.

Now, this essay will only be
relevant to those of you who are convinced progressives. If you are a wavering
general election voter, looking to be convinced that the Progressive vision of
America must be our future, then look away now – but come back later, I will
have much more to say to you in the run-up to November. (I’m looking at you,
Dad.)

So, fellow progressives, now that
we’re among friends… let’s talk. It’s been a roller coaster the last 7 and a
bit years, hasn’t it? On the one hand, if you’re anything like me, you wake up
every morning a little bit grateful that Barack Obama is in the White House,
but your heart sinks every time you turn to the news and see how they treat
him. If you’re anything like me, you thank your lucky stars that we managed to
do so much (a pretty effective stimulus package… intergalactic leaps in LGBT
rights… health care reform! Hosannah in the highest, the first comprehensive
health care reform package anyone’s been able to deliver in the 100+ years that
we’ve been trying!) before Congress was taken over by a cavalcade of outrage merchants
who hate the government they serve in. (Selfloathing, thy name is Tea Party.)

And now, you look at the unseemly
freak show that is the Republican primary, and wonder when someone is going to
shout April Fools and admit that it’s all an elaborate and, frankly, tasteless
practical joke. President Donald Trump. No. It can. Not. Happen. Apparently, it
falls to us not only to save the nation from this angry-without-a-cause mob,
but actually to save them from the consequences of their own actions. So be it.
It won’t be the first time life was unfair to progressives.

OK, enough background. We know what
the stakes are, and we know that they are vast.

We also know that failure is not an
option, except that it is. Losing is inconceivable, but plausible.

On the Democratic side, we are
divided. Divided on substance. Divided on a sincere and well-considered
difference of opinion that is not at all easy to resolve, and that I find
splits my own convictions down the middle. On the one hand, Hillary Clinton and
her supporters are arguing for a politics of pragmatism. They suggest, and not
without foundation, that holding on to the considerable gains progressives have
made recently is already a form of victory. They say that safety is radicalism
here, because we are about to see the tipping of the Supreme Court, the locking
in of health care reform, and demographic trends favour our case for
immigration reform. They stipulate that we are in an era of political gridlock,
and they promise to do everything in their power to 1) hold the line and 2)
make incremental advances where we can. I find that to be a compelling
analysis, and thus a fairly appealing promise.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders
and his supporters say that the problems of this country go beyond what we have
yet begun to solve. They point out – rightly – that to our shame, economic
inequality is becoming crippling, that the richest are getting richer, and the
middle class is being squeezed out of existence. They argue that we need a
bolder politics, a genuine revolution that can begin to reverse these trends,
and they further argue that there are entrenched interests even within our own
party system that must be combatted if we are going to make progress. I also
find that to be a compelling analysis, and at least an INTRIGUING promise.

If we combine these two analyses
(because they CAN be combined), we arrive at vision in which much change is
needed, but very little change is possible. In which gridlock is inevitable,
but devastating.

I’ve spent months wrestling with
this choice of candidate, and in the course of that consideration the big
surprise to me has been how much I have come to like and admire Bernie Sanders
as a person. I fully expected in the course of this race to find that he was a
bit kooky, a bit unserious, a bit starry eyed. He’s none of those things. In
fact, he’s got an amazing record for being right about things progressives care
about long before America comes around to our point of view. He’s been right on
civil rights and segregation, he was right on LGBT rights (watch this amazing video of him standing up for LGBT
soldiers back in 1995), he was right about the war in Iraq. He’s never
compromised his principles, and bless him for that.

But here’s the thing... Bernie’s not
saying that you should vote for him for President because he’s been pure in his
ideals through all or his career. He’s arguing you should vote for him for
President because he is in the best position to lead a movement that will
fundamentally change the nature of politics and economics in this country. And
he needs to do that in a world where it is not conceivable that any Republican
or right-leaning public official of any kind will cooperate in any way with any
efforts in this direction that any progressive might make.

Here in the UK, we have recent
experience of what happens when the Left throws it’s support to an ideologically
unimpeachable maverick. Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the Labour Party, is a
lifelong rebel against the compromising instincts of his own party, a perfectly
uncompromised and consistent man who has always been well liked by his party
and whom even his opponents agree is a man of integrity and principle. He’s
also led Labour so far from the possibility of being elected that the
Conservative government has decided it is fully inconstrained. Jeremy Corbyn
promised that he could leverage his Party leadership into a transformation of
this small-c conservative country into the Socialist utopia of Labour’s dreams.
There is evidence that instead of his promised political revolution, he has
secured an unbreakable Tory majority for the foreseeable future.

It’s a cautionary tale, and
reinforces my belief that there is no secret path to peaceful revolution laying
behind the door marked, “Authenticity of the Left”.

So, let’s leave aside for the moment
the question whether a political revolution is even possible. Let’s talk first
about business as usual – What will it take for the next President to do the
job of President?

Well, it will take ruthless Party
discipline, for a start.

But Bernie Sanders is not even a
member of the Party he seeks to lead. His purity of principle, which I admire,
prevented him from joining the compromised, imperfect Democratic Party. As a
self-described democratic socialist, he was the only socialist in Congress. 26
years after he became the first, he is still the only socialist in Congress.
Put bluntly, that doesn’t sound like a record of creating transformative
progressive political movements.

Does Hillary Clinton have a record
of leading progressive movements? Well, she has a record of leadership, for
sure. In the Senate, in the White House as First Lady, and as a powerful
Secretary of State – everywhere she’s gone, she seems to have accrued to
herself a roster of highly loyal, highly capable people.

I don’t think she’s the right person
to lead a political revolution. I don’t think SHE thinks she’s the right person
to run a political revolution.

But she’s a great person to lead
Democrats.

Look, I’m a member of this Party.
I’m a proud member of this party, even on the days when this party does not
make me proud. I was a member of this Party even when many of its members were
to the right of me on LGBT rights, even when its leaders voted for a war I thought
was a terrible mistake, because I believe that creating a coalition of people
with enough shared values to work together for the general interest is how
political change happens. I do not believe it happens overnight, I do not
believe it happens simply or easily. And I really, really, don’t believe it
happens by transitioning the one and only avowedly socialist member of
government directly into the White House.

Hillary Clinton also believes that
political change happens through hard work, and within the coalition of the
Democratic Party. And she’s been in the dirt negotiating towards that change
for decades.

On a personal level, I always say
that when I vote for President I want to vote for someone who is better than
me. Smarter than me, tougher than me, with better judgement than me. One way in
which I know Hillary Clinton is a better person than I am is how insanely
relentlessly she perseveres. I’ve watched her over the years work with
Republican Senators who called her insulting names during her husband’s
impeachment. I watched her go to work with the man who beat her in the 2008
Primary, I’ve watched her go back and face the same electorate again. She’s not
a natural politician – she’s said so
herself.

So why is she doing it? Why face so
much punishment and loss of dignity? I think that if you apply Occam’s razor,
the simplest explanation is her own: she says she has always felt called to
service. She says she’s been fighting for a vision of a better, fairer America
since she was a young woman at Wellesley. Her path to that America hasn’t
always matched up step by step with the path I would have taken. But I am
entirely aligned with her about the mode of transport (if you’ll forgive the
analogy…) – change within, and THROUGH the institution of the Democratic Party.
Being in the room when hard decisions are being made within a coalition is
important. Some of the most powerful changes that can be made in politics
happen at the local, state and national party level, when activists show up to
canvass and call, but call out their leaders for not being good enough on the
issues they care about. When activists and make things tough for the Party
leaders until those leaders finally GET that they have to take these activists
concerns seriously. Hillary’s been in those rooms for longer than I’ve been
alive, and she’s been on both sides – she’s been the activist fighting for
feminism, and children’s rights, and reform. And she’s been the party leader,
listening and adapting. I respect that process. We need more of it.

Bernie Sanders has clean hands, the
utmost integrity, and no credible way to deliver what he promises.

My vote for Hillary Clinton is a
vote of respect for her personally. But it’s also a vote of confidence in the
Democratic Party – in the ideas of the Democratic Party, but also the idea of
the Democratic Party. Under all circumstances, the next President must be a
Democrat. My preference is that the next President has always been a Democrat.